Dear all
I'd really appreciate some advice on an application for Wikipedia to be considered for a very prestigious international heritage recognition. Myself and a few others previously applied and got to the final stages of the process, however we were rejected on the following points. If anyone has any suggestions or papers which might help answer these issues I'd really appreciate it. I have a number of arguments prepared but I would really appreciate any thoughts, feel free to include them in this email list, or just email me them separately. The first point is the one I feel needs the most rebuttal.
1. Although it is acknowledged Wikipedia is a phenomenal idea, it was not clear how it could be defined as ‘heritage’ at this stage of its evolution. 2. Wikipedia's dynamic nature and the unpredictability of the nature of the content generated. 3. There was hesitation as to the perception it might create among the public, given their differing perspectives of Wikipedia as an information website. 4. Worry that Wikipedia includes things that aren’t true or accurate 5. Worry that if they admit Wikipedia, will they have to admit every other such platform (or other interesting information ideas) 6. Worry that the information held in Wikipedia is also held elsewhere
Thanks very much indeed
John
Hi John,
Thank you for your continued work to elevate the importance of Wikipedia in different circles.
Some early thoughts and questions below:
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 3:51 AM john cummings mrjohncummings@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all
I'd really appreciate some advice on an application for Wikipedia to be considered for a very prestigious international heritage recognition. Myself and a few others previously applied and got to the final stages of the process, however we were rejected on the following points. If anyone has any suggestions or papers which might help answer these issues I'd really appreciate it. I have a number of arguments prepared but I would really appreciate any thoughts, feel free to include them in this email list, or just email me them separately. The first point is the one I feel needs the most rebuttal.
- Although it is acknowledged Wikipedia is a phenomenal idea, it was
not clear how it could be defined as ‘heritage’ at this stage of its evolution.
What is the technical definition of "heritage" in this particular context? (That may help us come up with relevant talking points.)
- Wikipedia's dynamic nature and the unpredictability of the nature of
the content generated.
Looking at this question, question 1, 4, 5, and 6: I wonder if the place you're speaking to requires some level of stability or a static nature in the project/theme that they want to call heritage. If something has to be relatively static to be called a heritage, I wonder if you can consider a different framing altogether: instead of pitching Wikipedia as a heritage, you may want to consider pitching the model of global governance of knowledge Wikipedia has introduced and operates based on as a heritage. (Basically: the formula is the heritage, not the content itself.) If you make this switch, then you have concrete elements and some potential claims to make: * Wikipedia has revolutionized the way knowledge gets curated and created in many parts of the world. (You can talk about knowledge by a few to 100s of thousands of editors contributing to knowledge.) Wikipedia is not naive and while it welcomes everyone to share in the sum of all knowledge, the project has thought-through content policies and mechanisms to enable scalable knowledge curation/creation and maintenance: * Wikipedia:Verifiability * Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View * Wikipedia:Consensus * Transparency (through revision history) * Talk pages ...
Happy to think through this with you more if you have follow-ups. (note: I'm slow in responding to emails. If this is something that has a deadline in the near future and you want to follow-up on something that I mentioned above immediately: feel free to schedule one of my public office hours. [1] otherwise here is great.)
Best, Leila
[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Office_hours#Schedule
-- Leila Zia Head of Research Wikimedia Foundation
Hi John & Leila, I recall German Wikipedia made a bid for unesco heritage a while ago (before Wikidata in any case). Maybe they have some lessons learned? Here in the Netherlands the oldest museum (Teylers) made a bid for unesco heritage and stated their mission (of 1784) was the same as Wikipedia’s. That bid got rejected but we never did a lessons-learned on it.
Jane
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 27, 2023, at 10:59 PM, Leila Zia lzia@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi John,
Thank you for your continued work to elevate the importance of Wikipedia in different circles.
Some early thoughts and questions below:
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 3:51 AM john cummings mrjohncummings@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all
I'd really appreciate some advice on an application for Wikipedia to be considered for a very prestigious international heritage recognition. Myself and a few others previously applied and got to the final stages of the process, however we were rejected on the following points. If anyone has any suggestions or papers which might help answer these issues I'd really appreciate it. I have a number of arguments prepared but I would really appreciate any thoughts, feel free to include them in this email list, or just email me them separately. The first point is the one I feel needs the most rebuttal.
- Although it is acknowledged Wikipedia is a phenomenal idea, it was
not clear how it could be defined as ‘heritage’ at this stage of its evolution.
What is the technical definition of "heritage" in this particular context? (That may help us come up with relevant talking points.)
- Wikipedia's dynamic nature and the unpredictability of the nature of
the content generated.
Looking at this question, question 1, 4, 5, and 6: I wonder if the place you're speaking to requires some level of stability or a static nature in the project/theme that they want to call heritage. If something has to be relatively static to be called a heritage, I wonder if you can consider a different framing altogether: instead of pitching Wikipedia as a heritage, you may want to consider pitching the model of global governance of knowledge Wikipedia has introduced and operates based on as a heritage. (Basically: the formula is the heritage, not the content itself.) If you make this switch, then you have concrete elements and some potential claims to make:
- Wikipedia has revolutionized the way knowledge gets curated and created
in many parts of the world. (You can talk about knowledge by a few to 100s of thousands of editors contributing to knowledge.) Wikipedia is not naive and while it welcomes everyone to share in the sum of all knowledge, the project has thought-through content policies and mechanisms to enable scalable knowledge curation/creation and maintenance:
- Wikipedia:Verifiability
- Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View
- Wikipedia:Consensus
- Transparency (through revision history)
- Talk pages
...
Happy to think through this with you more if you have follow-ups. (note: I'm slow in responding to emails. If this is something that has a deadline in the near future and you want to follow-up on something that I mentioned above immediately: feel free to schedule one of my public office hours. [1] otherwise here is great.)
Best, Leila
[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Office_hours#Schedule
-- Leila Zia Head of Research Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Dear all, thank you very much for your help, its been submitted.
Best
John
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 at 13:39, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Hi John & Leila, I recall German Wikipedia made a bid for unesco heritage a while ago (before Wikidata in any case). Maybe they have some lessons learned? Here in the Netherlands the oldest museum (Teylers) made a bid for unesco heritage and stated their mission (of 1784) was the same as Wikipedia’s. That bid got rejected but we never did a lessons-learned on it.
Jane
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 27, 2023, at 10:59 PM, Leila Zia lzia@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi John,
Thank you for your continued work to elevate the importance of Wikipedia
in
different circles.
Some early thoughts and questions below:
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 3:51 AM john cummings <mrjohncummings@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear all
I'd really appreciate some advice on an application for Wikipedia to be considered for a very prestigious international heritage recognition. Myself and a few others previously applied and got to the final stages
of
the process, however we were rejected on the following points. If anyone has any suggestions or papers which might help answer these issues I'd really appreciate it. I have a number of arguments prepared but I would really appreciate any thoughts, feel free to include them in this email list, or just email me them separately. The first point is the one I
feel
needs the most rebuttal.
- Although it is acknowledged Wikipedia is a phenomenal idea, it was
not clear how it could be defined as ‘heritage’ at this stage of its evolution.
What is the technical definition of "heritage" in this particular
context?
(That may help us come up with relevant talking points.)
- Wikipedia's dynamic nature and the unpredictability of the nature
of
the content generated.
Looking at this question, question 1, 4, 5, and 6: I wonder if the place you're speaking to requires some level of stability or a static nature in the project/theme that they want to call heritage. If something has to be relatively static to be called a heritage, I wonder if you can consider a different framing altogether: instead of pitching Wikipedia as a
heritage,
you may want to consider pitching the model of global governance of knowledge Wikipedia has introduced and operates based on as a heritage. (Basically: the formula is the heritage, not the content itself.) If you make this switch, then you have concrete elements and some potential
claims
to make:
- Wikipedia has revolutionized the way knowledge gets curated and created
in many parts of the world. (You can talk about knowledge by a few to
100s
of thousands of editors contributing to knowledge.) Wikipedia is not naive and while it welcomes everyone to share in the sum of all knowledge, the project has thought-through content policies and mechanisms to enable scalable knowledge curation/creation and
maintenance:
- Wikipedia:Verifiability
- Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View
- Wikipedia:Consensus
- Transparency (through revision history)
- Talk pages
...
Happy to think through this with you more if you have follow-ups. (note: I'm slow in responding to emails. If this is something that has a
deadline
in the near future and you want to follow-up on something that I
mentioned
above immediately: feel free to schedule one of my public office hours.
[1]
otherwise here is great.)
Best, Leila
[1]
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Office_hours#Schedule
-- Leila Zia Head of Research Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to
wiki-research-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org